[3369] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT :: AMARAVATI the honourable SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: nc RAO Between: 1. Moode Ravi Kumar Naik Dasireddi Palli Thanda Gangampalli Post Gorantia S/o Lakshmi Ram Naik R/o D No 129 Sri Satya Sai District ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1- The State Of Andhra Pradesh. Through its Kadiri Rural PS Rep.by.State Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P ...respondent/complainant Petition under Section 482 of B.N.S.S in the circumstances stated i Petition, the High Court pleased released on bail in the event of his arrest i OF 2025, Kadiri Rural PS, Sri Sathya Sai and 438 of Cr.PC, praying that in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal to direct the Petitioner/Accused.No. 1 be in connection with the Cr.No.03 District dated 07.01.2025. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased Pending final adjudication petition, It is just and necessary that the present Petitioner/A-1 be on interim-bail in the event of arrest in connection with the Cr.No.03 OF 2025, Kadiri Rural Ps, Sri Sathya Sai District dated 07.01.2025. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and Dheera Kanishka, Advocate for the Petitioner and Respondent. praying that in the of the criminal released upon hearing the arguments of Sri the Public Prosecutor for The Court made the following: 1 APHC010233222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4924/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Moode Ravi Kumar Naik AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.DHEERA KANISHKA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following; ORDER: Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) [previously filed under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973], seeking anticipatory bail to Petitioner/AccusedNo.1 in Crime No.3 of 2025 of Kadiri Rural Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 179, 318(4) read with 3(5) of the BNS. nd This is the 2 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.01.2025 at about 05.45 AM, at the Market Yard, Kummaravandlapalli village, Kadiri Mandal, two accused persons purchased two rams (male sheep) from the de facto complainant by giving fake currency notes of Rs.32,000/- (64 notes x Rs. 500/-) with intent to cheat him and went away. After some time, the de facto complainant came to know that the said currency notes were fake and he searched for the accused in and around the market yard, but in vain. Based on the report given by him, the present case has been registered against the accused. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner/AI and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent/State. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner’s previous bail application vide Crl.P.No.2760 of 2025 was dismissed by this Court on 28.3.2025. Hence, the 2'^'^ bail application is filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/AI as there is change of circumstances i.e., release of the other accused on bail. Hence, prayed to consider this Criminal Petition. 4. 5. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner disputing the above fact that the investigation is not yet completed and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. As per the record, the Petitioner had previously filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Criminal Petition No. 2760 of 2025. This Court, after a thorough examination of the arguments presented by both counsel. 6. 3 dismissed the application on 28.3.2025. The 2 bail application filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A1 as there is change of circumstances i.e., release of other accused on bail and this Court is of the view that it cannot be taken as change of circumstances. All the contentions raised by the Petitioner have previously undergone 7. comprehensive scrutiny during the preceding bail application, culminating in its dismissal by this Court. Hence, the same contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner and the findings of this Court do not need to be reiterated. As already noted, this is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the Petitioner. In this context, it is pertinent to refer the decision of 8. the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra V. Buddhikota Subha Rao\ wherein it is held that: “7. XXX In the present case the successive bail applications preferred by the respondent were rejected on merits having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed. \ XXX Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact situation. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. ” In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: “20. Xxx Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in . ■'1989 Supp(2) see 605 ^ (2005) 2 see 42 4 which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. ” By following the aforementioned rulings, it is clear that unless there is a 9. significant alteration in the factual circumstances or legal principles necessitating a reconsideration of the previous stance, or, if the earlier determination has become obsolete, the second anticipatory bail application cannot be considered. In the absence of change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to consider the Petitioner’s second anticipatory bail application. 10. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the observations made in the present case. which are only for adjudicating the present bail application. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. 11. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Station House Officer. Kadiri Rural P.S, Sri Satya Sai District. Dheera Kanishka, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 2. One CC to Sri 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor 4. Two CD Copies PNM RAM HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER X nmm i CRLP.No.4924 of 2025 ■a^ . Current Section SpatcH^ CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED